Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Liberty Monument, Seychelles.jpeg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
Possible copyrighted image. I doubt the copyright holder granted the permission for its uploader. Copyright holder needs to send permission to COM:OTRS. Delete per COM:PRP. We take copyright very seriously even if the copyright holder does not. Wikicology (talk) 08:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Delete The photograph is freely licensed at the source. The photograph, however, is a derivative of the sculpture and, therefore, permission from the sculptor is also required. Unfortunately, we do not have COM:FOP information for Seychelles, so delete per COM:PRP.
Keep The photograph has a CC-by license at the source. Per SCHEDULE 1 Sections 10, 11 12 and 13 of the Seychelles Copyright Act, "The reproduction, distribution of copies or inclusion in a film or broadcast of an artistic work permanently on view to the public" are "acts not controlled by copyright" (i.e., Seychelles indeed has COM:FOP and additional permission from the sculptor is not needed.) Эlcobbola talk 16:15, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Kept, I reviewed the license. Taivo (talk) 18:16, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons at 6 August 2016. There is no freedom of panorama in Seychelles after 1 August 2014, So this photo cannot be applied freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Taivo: , Why you didn't see the date the photo was uploaded on Wikimedia Commons? Ox1997cow (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Keep. Actually it's important not upload into Commons, but publication. Source in Seychelles News Agency still exists and it was published on 29th of June 2014, earlier than 1st of August 2014, and freedom of panorama applies. Taivo (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment Please read this: Please do not use this template to any new uploads after 1 August 2014. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- The template has incorrect wording and the wording must be changed. New uploads are allowed, if the image is first published before 2014-08-01. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Please read this sentence. Any new uploads, as well as re-uploaded images (like cropped or edited ones), will be subject to deletion as not complying with the restrictive 2014 law. Ox1997cow (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- The template has incorrect wording and the wording must be changed. New uploads are allowed, if the image is first published before 2014-08-01. Taivo (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Delete @Taivo: importation is an action by itself. The file may have been uploaded to Seychelles News Agency before August 2014, but that does not mean we can just import that here. Seychelles News Agency can retain their photo, but we cannot import that photo after August 2016 as importation is a republication of the photo here, and this republication - an action by itself - is now subject to the new, restrictive law. This also applies to Flickr imports as well as Panoramio imports. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Every Commons file is usable for any purpose, including commercial. This applies to Seychelles photos uploaded before 2016. If we cannot upload old photos from Seychelles into Commons, then others cannot upload old photos from Commons into their own computers. This would be nonsense. All others can upload old photos from Seychelles from Commons into their own computers, that means we can upload old photos from Seychelles from everywhere into Commons as well. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Taivo this isn't strictly uploading, but more of importation. Whatever that may be called, importation is still an action by itself and we do not inherit the action done by Seychelles News Agency, since we are separate users from that news agency. Our actions of importing old photos are new actions subject to the restrictive Seychellois law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's no difference between uploading and importing. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Taivo: we do not inherit Seychelles News Agency's act of uploading their photo on their site, since we are not end-users; we distribute content anew that anyone can freely exploit. In the case of your statement "all others can upload old photos from Seychelles from Commons into their own computers", they can legally do so because they are end-users; they do not redistribute content anew. Redistribution is subject to the current law, not the old law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- The law does not consist words "end-user" or "redistribution", that means, there's no legal difference between end-users and redistributors. Taivo (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Taivo: we do not inherit Seychelles News Agency's act of uploading their photo on their site, since we are not end-users; we distribute content anew that anyone can freely exploit. In the case of your statement "all others can upload old photos from Seychelles from Commons into their own computers", they can legally do so because they are end-users; they do not redistribute content anew. Redistribution is subject to the current law, not the old law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 20:10, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. There's no difference between uploading and importing. Taivo (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- @Taivo this isn't strictly uploading, but more of importation. Whatever that may be called, importation is still an action by itself and we do not inherit the action done by Seychelles News Agency, since we are separate users from that news agency. Our actions of importing old photos are new actions subject to the restrictive Seychellois law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
- I disagree. Every Commons file is usable for any purpose, including commercial. This applies to Seychelles photos uploaded before 2016. If we cannot upload old photos from Seychelles into Commons, then others cannot upload old photos from Commons into their own computers. This would be nonsense. All others can upload old photos from Seychelles from Commons into their own computers, that means we can upload old photos from Seychelles from everywhere into Commons as well. Taivo (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Question Does anyone know if the 2014 law was retroactive in scope? If it's not, then the photo should be grandfathered in and would be acceptable. But if it was applied to all extant works, then we would be in violation. —holly {chat} 18:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Deleted: per nomination and discussion. Our guideline on COM:FOP Seychelles is very clear, 'Not OK for depictions (like photos and videos) of artistic works published on Wikimedia Commons on or after August 1, 2014". If this is reworded after consensus has been found on the text, this photo can be undeleted, but currently we have to rely on the validity of the text on that page. --Ellywa (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
